(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You guys can ask Y/N questions, but can't answer them yourselves.
Pretty hypocritical, no?

What the actual fuck?

You're just trolling, now.

Imma drop the rest of this here, again. Please tell me how this is not answering your question.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Your answer to a "yes or no" question was with neither a "yes" or "no".
...
Not a clear yes or no to be seen.

Why do you insist on being a fucking liar? The question was:

Huggy74 Wrote:[A]re you saying that it is impossible for a planetary body to shift in its orbit? A yes or no answer will suffice.

(March 1, 2015 at 12:41 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not intimating that a planetary body cannot shift its orbit.

How does my answer not directly address that question? Are you so obtuse that to you, a direct response to the question, not phrased in your false yes/no dichotomy, is not an answer? I refuse to believe that you are that dumb. But you are making it really fucking hard to hang on to that.

Literally "Are you saying this?" followed by "I am not saying this."

Direct question here: are you seriously saying that because I said "I am not" instead of "no," that you don't consider my answer, which literally directly answered your question, an answer?

Great article. Some of those "things you didn't know" I found to be taught by the JW's. Like torture stick and short hair. I love how Christians single out the JW's and Mormons (yes there annoying) but maybe the JW's are more align with Christianity (NO MEANS FULLY) but I would love for a regular ol' Christian be thrown all these facts. I would probably be considered the devil and they would say it's just a bunch of bull (the article). Trying to reason is hard with them.

(March 4, 2015 at 2:29 am)Vox Populi Wrote: Trying to reason is hard with them.

Exhibit A: The previous 28 pages of this thread.

(March 4, 2015 at 1:59 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Direct question here: are you seriously saying that because I said "I am not" instead of "no," that you don't consider my answer, which literally directly answered your question, an answer?

This is Buggy we're talking about here, there is no measure of obtuseness he won't attain, no depth of idiocy he won't plumb.

In other words, he seriously doesn't consider your answer an answer, because it used grammar that is above his paygrade. One word good, three words bad.

(March 4, 2015 at 1:59 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Direct question here: are you seriously saying that because I said "I am not" instead of "no," that you don't consider my answer, which literally directly answered your question, an answer?

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this is the case: I remember one of my first interactions with Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening.

Selective, ridiculous over-literalism is kinda his deal.

Huggy, are you sure you're not a catholic? You're excellent at editing out the parts of reality that don't fit you.

Please answer this simple question Huggy. Pick just yes or no, and don't try and dodge the question by explaining why you can't pick yes or no. It's a simple question.

This is a hypothetical scenario only. Assume you hear the voice of God. It's definitely God, the one you worship. There is absolutely no doubt about it. You're totally sure. He tells you to kill all your family and friends.

Will you obey and kill your family and friends? Yes or no.

Other theists are also welcome to answer with either yes or no too. I've not seen a single one ever give an honest, simple answer to this honest, simple question. If you think the scenario is impossible, then it doesn't matter which answer you say, does it? So just pick one. Except it already happened in the bible, Abraham was instructed to kill his son, and he agreed. He had real faith.

Oh, God wouldn't make you go through with it? Cool, then the answer is yes. You would fully intend to kill them, assuming he will stop you at the last minute. So "yes" will cover this.

So yes or no only please.

If you want a little bit more time to think, why not consider this scenario first:

http://youtu.be/Pt66kbYmXXk

(March 4, 2015 at 2:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: Selective, ridiculous over-literalism is kinda his deal.

... and yet he cannot master the different denotations of "faith". What a linguist he is.

Yet not so cunning.

(March 4, 2015 at 1:59 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You guys can ask Y/N questions, but can't answer them yourselves.
Pretty hypocritical, no?

What the actual fuck?

You're just trolling, now.

Imma drop the rest of this here, again. Please tell me how this is not answering your question.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Why do you insist on being a fucking liar? The question was:



How does my answer not directly address that question? Are you so obtuse that to you, a direct response to the question, not phrased in your false yes/no dichotomy, is not an answer? I refuse to believe that you are that dumb. But you are making it really fucking hard to hang on to that.

Literally "Are you saying this?" followed by "I am not saying this."

Direct question here: are you seriously saying that because I said "I am not" instead of "no," that you don't consider my answer, which literally directly answered your question, an answer?

First of all, I wasn't talking to you, that was directed at Esquilax.
Secondly, I explicitly stated "A yes or no answer will suffice", your answer of

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not intimating that a planetary body cannot shift its orbit.

Is not a clear yes or no. The word you used "intimating" meant to be purposefully vague.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intimate

Quote:intimate
: to say or suggest (something) in an indirect way

---

(March 4, 2015 at 2:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: I actually wouldn't be surprised if this is the case: I remember one of my first interactions with Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening.

Selective, ridiculous over-literalism is kinda his deal.

Now THAT is a bald faced lie.
We already know you have a selective memory, how about providing the link to support to that claim?

You didn't say no, and you "know what that means". No can also mean yes.

This is confusing.